Kevin Curry

John James Audubon’s The Birds of North America Analysis

Although aesthetically pleasing, upon first glance, the 82nd plate of John James

Audubon’s The Birds of North America may seem to be a cluster of unorganized chaos.

However, under further analysis and observation, the illustration is indeed well planned out and I

believe Audubon has arranged the subjects in the picture in this wayas he did on purpose. As

Nickelsen explained, the botanical and specimen illustrations served a greater purpose than just

décor; “However, notwithstanding their beauty, they were not produced principally for

decorative purposes but in order to be published in books of the technical literature in order to

communicate botanical knowledge. This scientific side of plant images tends to be

overlooked…”1 In Audubon’s illustration of the whip-poor-will in the 82nd plate, he is showing

this exactly. He creatively explores the ideals of scale, balance, depth, detail and motion in the

painting to depict the importance deeper meanings behind of this particular arrangement.

The first and most apparent observation was the different scales of the three whip-poor-

wills in the picture. The larger of the three birds and also the only male, located at the top of the

page, is an obvious focal point and an important aspect of the painting for several reasons. I

believe the difference in scale may not only have to do with accuracy of the subjects but also

displaying a male dominance in the species. Although, most males tend to be larger than females,

the artist accentuates the male’s size by showing his extensive wingspan in midflight. This is

important because even without words, the viewer is able to make key assumptions or

observations on the lifestyles of these birds. One would be able to tell that the males take care of

the hunting because in this picture the male is in the midst of chasing a moth. And furthermore,

1 Nickelsen, Karin. "Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations." Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): Introduction.

1

this gives insight into what the diet for these birds might be and how they catch their prey. The

scale of the birds and especially the male is an important part of how the species are arranged

and fit with each other in the picture.

The balance and composition of this illustration initially struck me as odd. After

observing all layers of the picture and the location of certain organisms, it seemed to me that the

picture was asymmetrical and very heavy along the bottom as well as up the right side of the

picture. However, by dissecting the illustration by into layers, I realized the foreground is very

symmetrical and balanced. The organisms almost form a perfect circle in the picture that starts

with the two females on the branch, goes up the right side to the larger male who is chasing the

butterfly and moth. The circle is then fully connected by the largest and most detailed leaf

towards the left of the page. This geometrical set up is relevant because it encompasses all the

most important subjects of the illustration. The three birds are the obvious subjects of the

depiction, however, the other organisms offer important information about the birds. The leaf

and the branch from which the leaf comes from offer the viewer insight to the kind of habitat in

which this species of bird resides. And as previously mentioned, the other organisms allow the

viewer to make assumptions about the kind of organisms the whip-poor-wills prey upon. The

symmetrical balance of the organisms in this picture proves to be another way Audubon is

exploring and emphasizing the arrangement of the contents in the illustration itself.

Although there aren’t extreme levels of depth in the picture, I believe there is enough for

the viewer to understand what is going on in the picture and on whathappening on the different

planes. The different layers of leaves create a dynamic aspect for the illustration and provide

sufficient information about the depth of the scene. I think Audubon found the perfect balance

between necessary information and excessive additions, which might become distracting to the

2

viewer and the overall composition of the painting. The white background provides a sharp

contrast to some of the organisms and brings out the lines in the print. This is another

representation of one of the topics discussed by Nickelsen in his article. He quotes a letter of a

botanist to a draughtsman explaining what the illustration should look like by saying, “As to the

background, I will leave this to the judgment of the artist, although I am of the opinion that,

when it comes to plants with pale green leaves or white flowers, a browner background would

make the picture clearer. In any case, I would plead once more for nature to be expressed as

clearly as possible…”2 Audubon is effectively using the same strategy that draughtsmen were

using a century earlier for the same reasons. The placement of certain organisms against the

white background really allows the “nature to be expressed as clearly as possible”. This method

of leaving certain things out of the background and loosing some depth in order to gain more

clarity proves to be another reason the arrangement of the painting is so importanteffective in

portraying scientific knowledge.

An important vital part of this Audubon illustration is the exceptional detail of the

subjects and their surroundings. The colors and the textures of the feathers of the birds are what

first struck me. Not only the birds, but most of the leaves and the branch have intricate details

that make the picture unmistakable for something else. Previous to the 18th century particularly,

illustration was a difficult part of classification because of the lack of detail or clarity they

provided. Freedberg explored the topic of illustration in the early 17th century classification

process and explained of one man’s work primarily. He critiques this man in his conclusion by

stating, “Cesi must have realized that in at least two respects his illustrations had failed... the

woodcuts he and his friends struggled over for so long were much more rudimentary and lacking

2 Nickelsen, Karin. "Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations." Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2006): Educating and Supervising Botanical Draughtsmen.

3

in detail…”3 This quote proves to be why detail is so important in botanical and zoological

drawings. It also proves why Audubon’s picture of the 82nd plate is so successful in nature. The

detail is a reinforcing factor that supports the arrangement of the picture by providing even more

further information about the subjects.

The last but yet one of the mot relevant aspects of the illustration in respect to

composition and layout is the sense of motion that Audubon captures in the picture. There is an

obvious illusion of movement and excitement in the painting due to several key indicators. The

male bird is the first clear example of motion in the drawing. He is shown in midflight swooping

down and appears to be in the midst of a chase for food. His prey is attempting to flee along with

other species in the picture including the other butterfly or moth and the caterpillar. This

commotion of the chase creates an intense sense of movement. Another more subtle but ever

important indicator is the leaves. They look as if the environment around them is affecting them

in the sense that they are not staying straight, but are bending and curving in different directions.

Possibly being thrown about by the wind. The disturbance of peace shown in this illustration

elicits a feeling of excitement or anxiousness. In the way the male bird is shown and even the

female bird is on the right, I get the sense that something is about to happen and Audubon

captures the moment before the event perfectly. The arrangement of the picture yet again is

accentuated through the motion of the picture and then in turn depicting feelings of chaos and

uncertainty.

In my analysis of John James Audubon’s The Birds of North America and in the

illustration of the whip-poor-wills especially, I can conclude that the preempted arrangement of

the organisms was an extremely important piece of the played a significant role in the

presentation of scientific knowledge in the painting. The specific placement of the three birds,

3 The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo, his friends, and the beginnings of modern natural history., 2002.

4

two butterflies, caterpillar and the treecertain specimens in the scene gave insight and allowed

the viewer to have a deeper understanding of the birds themselves. Audubon’s successful use of

certain different aspects of illustration were crucial in the explanation of the scene and why it

was essential for the organisms to be located where they were. In botanical and zoological

illustrations and especially full scenes like the one depicted here, I believe the success of the

arrangement is directly related to the viewer’s experience with the picture.

5

6

From Abigail Bliss 15:Hey Kevin!Thanks a bunch for the feedback!  I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised by my intro and found it relatively effective. I feel like I do take a side within my body paragraphs as to whether its for science or show, which you obviously couldn't know without having read the rest of the essay.  As for the conclusion, I will try vary my word choice and syntax so as not to seem so repetitive.  In addition, I will be wary of bouncing back and forth between sides and try to take a firm stance throughout my essay.  Once again, thanks! And good luck with your essay! I'm sure it'll turn out well.

Hey Abigail!In response to your comments, I just wanted to say thank you for bringing some of my problems to light. I will be sure to fine tune some of my sentences to get rid of the vagueness you were talking about. After rereading my intro and conclusion I completely agree with you. As for the conclusion, I do feel like without the rest of the essay you might feel left in the dark so Ill be sure to read my whole essay through again and determine whether clarification is necessary. Thanks again for all your help!Kevin

-----Original Message-----From: Kevin Curry 15Sent: Wed 11/9/2011 7:29 PMTo: Abigail Bliss 15Subject: RE: Audubon RewriteHey thanks for the insight! Hope my feedback helps as well.Intro:Positive-Pleasantly Surprised. The last 2 sentences of your introduction were effective, different and for lack a  better term, a breath of fresh air. It was great to see that you were attacking the problem with asking a question and in a sense engaging your reader into the process of analyzing the picture.Negative- Confused. I was only somewhat confused because of the fact that it doesn't seem to me that you take a direct side and come out with whether you think the piece is for science or show. However, I do believe you will explore your point definitely in the body.Conclusion:Positive: Assured. Your point was made and completed clearly in your conclusion. You left no doubt in my mind that you understood your argument and conveyed it appropriately.Negative: Unsatisfied. Although the word seems harsh, I just feel there is a little bit of repetitiveness with starting the second sentence with yet,.. as you had done in similar fashion in your introduction. Also the word stark was used twice in the conclusion. If you could find another substitution i think the word stark would have more conviction.Possible pitfalls/successesI hope that you address the issues addressed in nickelsen's and freedberg's writings that you had mentioned in both the introduction and the conclusion. I would hope you avoid

7

bouncing back and forth between the sides and make direct arguments favoring one side of the issue or the other

.-----Original Message-----From: Abigail Bliss 15Sent: Tue 11/8/2011 7:58 PMTo: Kevin Curry 15Subject: RE: Audubon RewriteHey! I really liked your two paragraphs! Here's my feedback.  Hope it helps! Also, my two paragraphs are at the bottom. Let me know what you think.INTRO:Positive: Grounded.  I feel comfortable with my understanding of your argument that the artist uses artistic techniques to convey scienceNegative: Alienated.  Vague words like “in this way” and “showing this” and “this particular arrangement” tip toe around your argument instead of drawing the reader into it.  More specific diction might help captivate your reader.  What do you mean by “importance” in the last sentence?And just a heads up, I think you have a typo…”planed” should be “planned” right?CONCLUSION:Positive: Pleased.  I like that I can see the very strong connection between your intro and conclusion.  It is clear that you addressed the same question all throughout the essay instead of wandering from point a to b and off on different tangents.Negative: Unsatisfied.  Similar to the intro, unspecific phrases like “specific placement” and “certain specimens” and “certain aspects” don’t do it for me.  What was the placement? What were the aspects?  What is the “deeper understanding”? So, too, sentences like “Audubon’s successful use of certain aspects of illustration were crucial in the explanation of scene and why it was essential for the organisms to be located where they were” don’t actually explain why it was essential or crucial.  It just states that it was.  Perhaps, you explain this more in your body paragraphs, but having just read your intro and conclusion, I feel kind of left in the dark.What I hope you address in the essay:-      

How the artist’s use of different artistic elements like “scale, balance, depth, detail and motion” add to the scientific knowledge it illustrates-      

How Nickelson’s text relates to the image-       How the arrangement facilitates a deeper understanding

What I hope you avoid in this essay:-       just going through the different artistic elements and describing them without

explaining their significance.My Paragraphs:In John James Audobon’s Elephant Portfolio (1840), the eighty-second plate contains an image of whippoorwills that is vivacious in color, impressive in its detail, and beautiful in its overall composition.  Yet, it is also completely unconventional.  This drawing of the three birds is clearly meant to depict a certain species, and therefore intended to convey scientific information, yet it defies the conventions for drawing species described by David Freedberg in “The Doctor’s Dilemma” and by Karin Nickelson in “Draughtsmen, Botanists, and Nature: Constructing Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations.”  Because the image does not conform to the

8

rules laid out for conveying information for classification and is aesthetically appealing enough to be perceived for pleasure alone, we must consider its purpose.  Is it for science or for show?The image of whippoorwills is both an artistic masterpiece and means of conveying scientific knowledge.  Yet, it is clear that the artist of the whippoorwill page of the Audobon album made no effort to adhere to preceding conventions laid out by the Linceans of the early seventeenth century and the botanists of the eighteenth century.  In a sense, however, his rejection of the stark, geometric sketches in favor of the curving lines of the whiskers and stems that so emphasize the vivacity of the whippoorwills and their environment is fitting.  The eighteenth century witnessed a shift in gardening styles from the geometric, rigid style, epitomized by the French masterpiece at Versailles, to a desire to make the garden so reminiscent of nature in its most unruly and natural state that the artificiality could be passed off as authenticity.   In that context, our artist’s seemingly rebellious choices are not as outlandish; there was a general movement to view nature in less of a strict, stark, controlled look and more in a manner that, while no less constructed, appeared to be more unruly and natural.

From Lindsay Ewing:

Hi Kevin!Thanks for your comments as well. I agree that I should re-word the last sentence of my intro, as I tend to get wordy and use phrases that are sort of vague and too long; also, you are correct in saying that there is a lot of evidence in my conclusion that would be better suited in a body paragraph. I always have trouble writing conclusions, so typically I just try to avoid them all together and just add a few broad sentences onto the last paragraph. I will try to avoid that this time. Finally, I think I will probably modify some of the body paragraphs and have them be more rooted in the texts than in my own experiences. . .the focus on my essay was comparing my drawing and Audubon's, which is not necessarily answering the central question for the essay.Thanks for your help!Lindsay

Hey Lindsay!In Response to your emails and comments I just wanted to say thank you. Both Abigail and yourself brought up similar points about the vagueness in my wording in the intro and I will be sure to do some revising in that regard. Also, I do agree with you about how my conclusion could be improved by adding a stronger and broader sentence to the end to

9

wrap things up a little better. You were correct in the sense that I addressed the writings of both freedberg and nickelsen so hopefully that translates to success in building my point. Thanks again for all your help!Kevin

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Kevin Curry 15 <kcurry15@amherst.edu> wrote:Hey Lindsay here are my comments and just ask if you need some clarification.Thanks,Kevin

Intro: Positive- ConvincedI am extremely convinced that you understood both the material you were comparing and your argument for the essay. In describing the contents of the picture as well as some of the ideals in Stepan's writing, it shows a complete comprehension as well as a strong sense of direction for the rest of the essay. Negative- DispleasedAlthough thats seems harsh I was just a little uneasy about the second to last sentence of the intro. I feel that it might be able to be split into two segments instead of one rolling sentence with a set of parentheses. Also, you used the phrase "the particular specimen" twice in the sentence and if there are any alternative phrases you could substitute one of those for I would recommend it. I only mention this because you don't want to digress from your usual strong vocabulary and writing style. Conclusion Positive- InterestedI feel that comparing your own experiences with drawing your copy of Audubon's picture was and interesting way of concluding your essay. Your were able to bring up several interesting points that I had not thought of before reading you conclusion. Negative- UnsatisfiedAlthough and interesting strategy, I think some of the info you used in your conclusion could be best suited in the body of your essay. This is because it seems that you are still presenting evidence and backing up your argument rather than concluding your main thoughts entirely. Maybe splitting the paragraph. or constructing it differently might make for a stronger conclusion Potential Pitfalls/successes I might avoid just talking about your experiences and how they relate to the drawing without going further and relating them to the readings or things we have talked bout in class. I would think it would be successful to really analyze the idea of mixed media and how Stepan, Freedberg or Nickelsen's writing reinforces those ideas and or relates to the main problem of the illustration.

-----Original Message-----From: Lindsay Ewing [mailto:lindsayaewing@gmail.com]

10

Sent: Wed 11/9/2011 4:46 PMTo: Kevin Curry 15Subject: Re: Audubon Rewrite

Hi!

Here are my comments. Feel free to take them or leave them, and to email meor call me (617 462 5661) if you want some clarification.

Thanks,Lindsay

*Intro:*

Positive- Interested

I like that you set up many dialectics/contradictions, such as the"Although aesthetically pleasing at first glance, . . ." and then "AsNickelsen explained. . ." followed by "However. . ." This is an engagingtechnique as you get the reader thinking or noticing one aspect of thepainting, and then direct them another way. Thus, I was intrigued andinterested to see how you will prove that what people initially see andthink is actually incorrect or different than what is true.Negative- Confused

Some of the wording is slightly confusing to me. The occasional useof colloquial/unclear terms (such as "on purpose," the repeated use of"however," and "notwithstanding their beauty") is distracting and couldeasily be switched to make your analysis sound a bit more professional.Additionally, I am not totally confident that I understand your thesis.From the last sentence I gathered that you're arguing that Audubon usesmany different artisitic techniques to show that the placement of the birdson the page is significant and that the scientific importance of suchdrawings is often overlooked. . . is that what you want people to get outof reading your intro, and which point specifically are you going to argue?Just something to consider.

*Conclusion:*

 Positive- Comforted

11

In your conclusion, I think it is clear that the body of your essay musthave answered the question: why is the arrangement of organisms in thepainting important? As this was one of the things you set out to accomplishin the introduction, it is comforting to see the connection between thetwo.

Negative- UneasyI think a large part of my uneasiness could be simply because I did not getto read your middle paragraphs, but I am wondering why what you proved isimportant in the context of studying botany. Maybe you could add a sentenceat the end just to broaden your topic and bring it into the context of lifein general and life today. Also, when you say the arrangement of organismswas an "extremely important piece of the painting," why/how is this true?It makes me uneasy to hear that something is really important withoutknowing why. If you've explained why in your body paragraphs then youshould be good, though it might still be nice to reiterate quickly in theconclusion so that the reader remembers the main point.

Other Note: I'm not sure that it is necessary to say "in thewhip-poor-wills especially" regarding your analysis because did you look atany other images of The Birds of North America?

 *Potential Pitfalls/Successes*:

 I would think that you would be successful talking about Freedberg andNickelsen and their points about color and the general layouts of botanicaldrawings. I would be careful getting sucked into just saying that thelayout of the painting is important and talking about all the differentelements (depth, line, etc.) without saying why they are important.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Kevin Curry 15 <kcurry15@amherst.edu> wrote:

> **

>> Hey guys,>> So below I included my intro and conclusion. We should probably give> feedback separately instead of in a group so we can better organize it when> we have to copy the whole discussion and turn it in. I just thought I would

12

> send it them to you first as one email. Let me know what you guys think.>> Thanks,> Kevin>> Intro:> Although aesthetically pleasing, upon first glance, the 82nd plate of John> James Audubon's The Birds of North America may seem to be a cluster of> unorganized chaos. However, under further analysis and observation, the> illustration is indeed well planed out and I believe Audubon has arranged> the subjects in the picture in this way on purpose. As Nickelsen explained,> the botanical and specimen illustrations served a greater purpose than just> décor; "However, notwithstanding their beauty, they were not produced> principally for decorative purposes but in order to be published in books> of the technical literature in order to communicate botanical knowledge.> This scientific side of plant images tends to be overlooked "  In Audubon's> illustration of the whip-poor-will in the 82nd plate, he is showing this> exactly.  He creatively explores the ideals of scale, balance, depth,> detail and motion in the painting to depict the importance of this> particular arrangement.>> Conclusion:> In my analysis of John James Audubon's The Birds of North America and in> the illustration of the whip-poor-wills especially, I can conclude that the> preempted arrangement of the organisms was an extremely important piece of> the painting. The specific placement of certain specimens in the scene gave> insight and allowed the viewer to have a deeper understanding of the birds> themselves. Audubon's successful use of certain aspects of illustration> were crucial in the explanation of scene and why it was essential for the> organisms to be located where they were. In botanical and zoological> illustrations and especially full scenes like the one depicted here, I> believe the success of the arrangement is directly related to the viewer's> experience with the picture.

13